Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SRI. ABDUL SATHAR – Appellant
Versus
BHAVAS S/O.RASHEED – Respondent
WP(C) 5698/2013
Compensation - Employees Compensation Act - Section 22(1) - The court emphasizes the importance of giving ample opportunity to aggrieved parties in cases involving compensation claims, particularly considering previous proceedings and the necessity for justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to overturn the dismissal of a compensation claim case under the Employees Compensation Act after multiple absences. The court was petitioned to restore the case and provide a timely resolution.
Finding of the Court:
Despite acknowledging the petitioner's lapses, the court found sufficient grounds to restore the case to allow for its proper adjudication, prioritizing the interest of justice.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of the compensation claim case due to the petitioner's absence was justified and whether the case should be restored for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that even where there are delays, if a party has previously engaged in proceedings, a lenient approach may be warranted to ensure fair resolution.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the dismissal and restoring the compensation claim for further proceedings.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
“i) To call for the records made into Exhibits P2 order and set aside the same and to allow Exhibit P1 petition.
ii) To give a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the case within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
iii) To grant such other reliefs this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
2. The petitioner is the applicant in WCC No.21/2008 on the file of the 2nd respondent. Respondent No.1 is the opposite party. Petitioner filed the above petition under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 claiming a compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained to him on 31.03.2005 at
9.a.m., while he was was working as a sand worker.
3. The applicant was examined as AW1 and he was cross examined by the opposite party. The applicant produced six(6) documents which were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 29.08.2009. On that day the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were absent. Subsequently, the case was adjourned to 11.06.2011 and 05.01.2011. On those days also the petitioner and the 1st respondent were absent. On 05.01.2011, the case was dismissed for default. Thereafter petitioner filed an application to restore the case. The same was dismissed as per Ext.P2 order. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
5. It is true that there is laches on the part of the petitioner but it is a case where the petitioner was examined and certain documents were already marked. In such circumstances, I think one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner to prosecute the case, taking a lenient view. Therefore, the impugned order can be set aside and the application can be restored. The petitioner will co-operate with the 2nd respondent for early disposal of the case.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:
1. Ext.P2 is set aside and WCC No.21/2008 is restored.
2. The 2nd respondent will take up WCC No.21/2008 and pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity to both sides in accordance with law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
